THE  CHURCH 


-AND  — 


SOCIAL  RELATIONS 


BY  W.  A.  DOUGLAS,  B.A 


What  gravitation  is  to  fhe  universe, 
tliat  religion  is  to  Lumauitv.  As 
gravinition  binds  the  unnTree  in  a 
cosmos,  80  moral  law  will  some  day 
bind  hiuu.inity  in  the  hajuionv  cf 
brotherhood.  ^ 

Religion  is  the  supremest  of  sciences, 

the    loftiest    of     k "inan     considerations, 

th«    bond    of    universal    humiony,      the 

80ure«   of    the  highe«t    inspiration,    the 
crowning  of  goodness,  the  enthronement 

of  love,  and  the  harbiuj^eo'  of  universal 

pteace. 

The  correct  method,  therefore,  of  de- 
veloping the  religious  spirit  and  of 
stKuiing  the  triumph  of  it^  influences 
must  ever  be  a  rjuewtion  of  the  highest 
in>portance. 

Th^re  is  n  twofold  application  of 
reUgiouB  truth:  Firat,  it  appeals  to  the 
individual  to  consecrate  himself  to  the 
highest  ideals;  second,  it  lays  down 
thtj  principles  for  the  government  of 
the  organization  of  society.  What  the 
brick  is  to  the  building,  what  the  sol- 
dier is  to  th«  army,  what  the  wheel  is 
to  the  macJiine,  that  the  iii<lividiial  is 
to  vocietv. 

In  cmr  evangelistic  efforts  this  dual 
application  of  religion  is  almost,  if  not 
wholly,  ignored.  All  the  efforts  of 
•vangelistie  organizations  are  almost 
w'holly  concentrated  on  the  individual. 
Again  and  again  is  proclaimed  the  doc- 
trine, that,  if  every  individ^uil  were 
right,  tlieo  the  ivhole  of  society  would 
necowrrily  l>e  right.  The  a9§umption 
m  that   the   goodness   of   the  parts    in- 


J) 


Hurea  the  geodness  of  the  whole.  If, 
however,  ivo  ask  a  few  questions  re- 
specting this  assumption,  we  see  at  once 
its  fallacious  character. 

What  would  wo  think  of  an  architect 
who  would  asau2-e  us  that  the  sound- 
ness of  a  building  depended  altogether 
on  the  soumdnesg  of  the  part«,  an<J  that 
the  arrangement  of  these  parts  is  a 
matter  of  no  importance?  What  would 
we  think  of  the  general  who  would  as- 
sert that  the  success  of  the  army  de- 
l>euded  wholly  on  the  valor  of  the  in- 
dividual soldier?,  and  that  org.anization, 
strategy  or  adaptation,  was  of  no  pos- 
sible importance?  What  would  we 
think  of  the  mechanician  who  would 
teach  that  the  success  of  a  machine 
dependc-u  wholly  on  the  pertwtion  of 
the  jmrts  jind  in  no  way  on  their  adap- 
tation,  relationship   or   adjustment? 

Can  We  think  of  teaching  more  ir- 
rational? A  building  is  a  great  deal 
more  than  a  pile  of  bricis;  an  army 
is  a  great  deal  more  than  a  mass  of 
holdiers;  a  machine  is  a  great  deal 
more  than  a  mere  aggregation  of  parts; 
and  in  the  same  way  society  is  a  great 
deal  more  thnn  a  mere  assemblage  of 
individuals. 

As  bad  adjustment  will  ruin  any 
Imilding  no  n)atter  how  good  the  ma- 
terials; as  lack  of  organization  will  in- 
sure the  defeat  of  any  anny  no  mat- 
ter how  good  the  soldiers;  as  bad  ar- 
rangement will  wnE?ck  any  inaciiine,  n* 
matter  bow  perfect  the  part©;    e^'en  %• 


\ 


f 


will  bad  rclatioDisliiip  vitiate  humanitj, 
no  matter  how  pure  and  how  correct 
the  religion  we  try  to  proclaim.  Injus- 
tice cannot  bring  forth  the  fruits  of 
righteousness. 

We  are  here  in  charge  of  the  archi- 
tecture of  society,  compared  with  which 
that  of  all  the  templee  or  palaces  in 
the  world,  sinlcsj  into  utter  inaignift- 
eance;  we  are  engaged  in  a  campaign. 
Whoso  aim  is  the  triumph  of  the  king 
dom  of  God;  we  have  to  determine  the 
adjustment  of  a  mechanism  as  grand 
and  wondrous  in  its  adaptations  as 
anything  in  the  heavens  above  or  the 
eiirth  beneath.  And  how  are  we  grap- 
pling with  this,  one  of  the  highest  of 
all  problems?  We  are  attempting  to 
solve  it  according  to  an  assumption, 
which,  if  applied  to  architecture,  to 
generalship,  to  mai-hinerj',  or  to  any 
business  organization,  would  be  the 
sheerest   ma^dness. 

In  our  evangelistic  effort;-  the  ser- 
vant is  exhorted  to  be  faitliful  to  his 
master  and  the  master  to  be  considerate 
to  his  servant,  but  no  enquiry  is  made 
why  there  is  such  a  relationship  as  a 
servant  and  a  master,  and  why  they  are 
not  fell'OW-heli)er8,  brethren  beloved. 
The  master  is  r^arded  as  satisfying 
the  claims  of  honesty,  when  he  pays  the 
wages  of  the  sweat  shop;  but  'he  is  not 
exhorted  to  investigate  why  it  is,  that, 
in  this  iworld  of  teeming  abundance, 
such  a  monstrosity  of  iniquity  as  a 
sweat  shop  can  have  an  exist^ce. 

Could  there  be  anything  more  sublime 
than    the     teachings      of      Christianity  t 
Further    than   sweep   of    »un     or     star, 
wider  than  the  expanse  of  the  heavens, 
loftier   than   the   reach   of   human  ken, 
there  must  exist  a  supreme  dominating 
intelligence.         In       the      transcendent 
glories  of  the  universe  there  comes  the 
overwhelming  conviction  "Thou    art,  O 
God,  thou  art."     The  mission  of  Clirist 
was  to  teach  us  to  call  this  being  **Om 
Father."       In    the    testimony    of     the 
rocks,   in    the   wondrous   mechanism    of 
the  heavens,    in  the  sublimities  and  the 
harmonies  of  the  universe,  in  the  max- 
velous  adaptations  of  the  physical  forces, 
in    the      ineffable    potencies   of   thought 
and  vitality,  we  catch  glimpses  of  His 
power  and  we  see    with     what     ample 
abundance   He  has  fitted   this   earth  to 
be  tihe  habitation  of  man.      Therefore, 
in  humble  reverence  do  we  bow  before 
Him,  and  repeat  the  Credo,  "I  believe 
in  G<kI  the  father,  maker  of  heaven  and 
earth."     Through   what  ages   did   men 
grope   before   they    reaebed    the  sublime 
grandeur  of  this  summary  of   truth,  and 
how  many  times  do  we  repeat  that  de- 
claration   before    we    begin    to    possess 
anything    like    an    adequate    conception 
of  its  full  import. 

Having  once  accepted  this  creed,  we 
are  bound  by  the  inexorable  laws  of 
thought  to  accept  other  truths  neces- 
sarily sequent  thereto.      As  a  part  im- 


plies   a  whole,  as    an  upper  implies  an 
under,    so    a    father    implies    a     child, 
children  imply  a  family  and   a  family 
implies    a    brotherhood.       The    moment, 
therefore,   we  acknowledge  the   doctrine 
of     the    fatherhood,    by     that    act     we 
acknowledge  the  doctrine  of    the  brother 
hood.     In  addition    to     this     we     also 
acknowledge   the   doctrine   of    God    the 
Creator,  the  provider  of  the  earth  with 
all  its  potentialitieei.      We  are  brought, 
therefore,   face    to   face  with   this   im 
portant  inquiry:  For  whom  did  God  the 
Creator  furnish  the^e  bounties?     To  de- 
clare that  he  furnished    them    for    the 
special  benefit  of  a  class  and   not  for 
the   equal   enjoyment   of  all,   would    at 
once  negative   the   doctrine    of    father- 
hood  and  brotherhood.      Every  instinct 
of    the  soul  rises  up  in  protest  against 
suoh  teaching.      Equal  brotherhood  aad 
equal  heirship  to  the  gifts  of  the  Cre- 
ator are  indissolubly  united;   they  stand 
or    fall    together.    '  For    one    part     of 
humanity  to  claim  the  right  to  charge 
the   rest   of  humanity   for   the   occupa- 
tion of   the   face  of   the  earth   or   for 
access   to   its  bounties,   is  the  negation 
of  the  doctrine  of  brotherhood  and  the 
asseveration   of  the   doctrine  of  master 
and  slave. 

Between  the  raw  material  as  furnisb- 
0*1  by  the  Creator  and  that  material  as 
transformed   or   transported     by   labor, 
there  is    an  essential  difference.  By  that 
act    of   transformation   the    laborer   es- 
tabli^es   an   inalienable   right   of   prop- 
erty in  the  value  he  adds  thereto.     I^ 
:i  man  demand  that  commodity  from  the 
]  producer    without    offering    some       fair 
i-quivalent    for   his   laboi',    and,    by    an 
unerring  instinct,  by  a  clivinely  planted 
instinct,    this    producer    feels    that     the 
demand  is  unjust.      The  universal  con- 
census is,  that  the  toiler  who  has  pro- 
duct d   a   commodity,   is    entitled    to     a 
reward.      He  has  net  created   material, 
but  he  has  created  value  and  by    that 
service     has     established     an     indefeas- 
ible right  of  property  therein.      When, 
therefore,    two    men    produce      different 
commodities   and   then    exchange   t^em, 
the  moral   instincts   recognize   at     onc« 
the  justice    of  the  transaction,  just  as 
unerringly    as  tie    intellectual  faculties 
reeognize   the   truth    that   the   equals   of 
any    one   thing    are    themselves     equal. 
The    justice    of    serice    for    ser/ice     is 
unerringly   and   unanimously    conceded; 
but    that'   men     should    be    allowed    to 
charge  for  that  which  the  Creator  fur- 
nish^, that  some  men  should  be  allow- 
ed  to  charge   the  others   for   the  priv- 
ilege of  living  and  moving  and  having 
their   being   on  the   face   of   the  eartb, 
that  is  a  doctrine  the  injustice  of  which, 
has  been  demonstrated  by  the  universal 
experi^nc^  of    the  ages.      That  the  mil- 
lions,   who,   by   their    industry,    prodiKie 
the   abundance   of   food,   clothing     and 
other     products,     should     enjoy      that 
abundance,  is  a  doctrine  that  should  be 


I 


(  • 

uuhesitatiugly  accepte<l.  That  the  man 
•wTio  pute  in  one  bushel.  an<l  bv  his  fos- 
tdTing  care  reaps  twenty  bushels,  should 
own  these  twenty  bushels,  would  seem 
to  need  no  demonstration.  But  when 
A  man  acquires  posse asion  of  a  i)iece  of 
land  and  makes  nothing  abundant,  when 
he  raises  no  vrop  of  any  kind  from  that 
land,  by  what  principle  of  justice  should 
lie  bo  allowed  to  claim  a  share  of  tJie 
■crops  that  other  hands  have  raised! 
Tjet  poj>ulation,  however,  gather  on  that 
land  till  the  area  for  each  occupant 
becomes  very  small,  tlien.  according  to 
our  present  arrangements,  the  land 
owner  is  aUowed  to  claim  the  abun- 
dance that  the  industry  of  other  men 
iias  begotten.  By  this  arrangennent, 
therefore,  the  men  who  produce 
abundani'e,  secure  only  scarcity,  while 
the  men  who  raise  nothing,  often  secure 
the  abundance,  simply  because  land  has 
become  scarce,  and  the  greater  thi» 
scarcity  of  land,  the  greater  is  the 
abundance  we  aUov.  the  landowner  to 
claim.  In  this  arrangement  is  there  not 
a  terrible  travesty  of  justice? 

It  needs  but  the  most  casual  atten- 
tion to  notice,  that  between  the  value 
caused  by  the  energy  of  che  individual 
and  the  value  caused  to  the  land  by 
the  community,  there  is  an  essential  dif- 
ference. By  evtery  productive  act  the 
laborer  is  trying  to  multiply  the 
abundance  of  commodities,  and  in  this 
way  ho  multiplies  the  value.  At  tho 
same  time  lot  the  population  of  any 
town  increase  from  notiiing  to  hundreds 
of  thousands,  and  to  the  land  of  that 
location  there  will  come  an  enormous 
value.  The  first  value  indicates  that 
the  industry  of  individuals  has  increased 
the  abundance  of  the  commodities,  the 
second  value  indicates  that  population 
has  increased  the  scarcity  of  land.  To 
treat  these  two  values  alike  is  as  irra- 
tional as  to  confound  an  asset  and  a 
liability  or  a  multiplication,  and  a  divi- 
flion. 

And  yet  in  our  regulations  resi>ecting 
the   rights   of   property   and   in   the   im- 
position of  taxation,   this  essential  dis- 
tinction   between    these    two    values     is 
utterly    ignored.       The   e<vil    results    of 
fcTiiia  .failure  are  to  l>e  witnessed  in  the 
<ievelopment    of      all     •ur     citief*,     the 
larger  the  city  the  greater  the  evidence 
of   the  injustice.      With   every   addition 
to    the    population    the    landowner    can 
claim   from   industiy  a  greater   tribute. 
At  the  same  time,  with  every  addition 
to  the  population,  the  state  claiiJis  from 
industry  a  larger  contribution  of  taxa- 
tion.    Thus  industry    must    meet    year 
after  year  a  two-fold  Increasing  tribute, 
one  to  the  owner  of  tlie  land,  the  other 
to   support  the  taxation.      Thus  do  we 
elevate  non-production  to  a  palace  and 
crusth  industry  down  to  the  humble  sur 
roondings  of    the  crowded  tenement  or 
to  the  pestiferous  slum.      Thus  do  we 
cHeave  society  in  twain,  making    at  one 


} 


extreme  the  Millionaires'  Row  and  at 
the  other  the  Beggars'  Alley.  Thus  one 
bears  all  the  burden  and  reaps  few  of 
the  advantages  of  civilization,  while  the 
other  gets  all  the  advantages,  without 
any  of  the  burdens. 

By  ignoring  the  difference  between 
the  gifts  o-f  tho  Creator  and  the  pro- 
ducts of  industry,  by  ignoring  the 
t»qual  right  of  every  one  to  the  former 
and  the  exclusive  right  of  the  indi- 
vidual to  the  lattPT,  by  ignoring  the  dif- 
ference between  the  value  caused  to 
commodities  by  the  energy  of  the  in- 
dividual and  the  value  caused  to  the 
lynd  by  the  conjoint  presence  of  the 
community,  we  trample  on  the  claims 
of  honesty  and  we  ignore  Hie  rigfats  of 
jwoperty.  We  destroy  the  possibility 
of  brotherhood;  we  establish  mastery 
and  servitude:  we  make  injustice  in- 
evitable and  by  so  much  do  iwe  make 
a  complete  Christianity  impossible.  In 
this  way  we  dethrone  Christianity  and 
exalt  tho  God  of   Mammon. 

In  our  churches  we  try  to  lift  the 
attention  of  our  hearers  to  the  higher 
duties  of  life,  to  elevate  their  thou^ts 
from  the  material  to  the  spiritual.  We 
renew  our  vows,  we  acknowledge  our 
belief  in  the  fatherhood  and  the  brother- 
hood: but  when  we  have  once  stepped 
outside  the  sanctuary,  could  the  con- 
trast between  our  acknowledgments  and 
our  practices  bo  more  terrible  f  We 
{►roclaim  God  the  Creator,  then  wo  treat 
the  earth  as  a  manufactured  article;  we 
acknowledge  the  brotherhood,  and  thwi 
we  nullify  that  acknowledgment  by 
lifting  one  to  tho  palace  and  driving 
another  to  the  slum;  we  exhort  to 
honesty,  and  then  we  punish  the  honest 
methods  of  acquiring  wealth  by  increas- 
ing taxes  on  industry  and  thus  we  en- 
courae'j  and  reward  speculation. 

What  a  contrast  between  the  religion 
taught  and  the  religion  practised!  On 
the  one  hand  we  proclaim  a  goodnew 
of  heavenly  beauty,  and  then  on  the 
other  we  beget  a  social  gehenna.  We 
repeat  the  hosanna,  ''Peace  on  earth, 
good  will  to  men,"  and  then  we  range 
the  classes  in  hostile  array  to  the 
masses.  Is  it  any  wonder  that  so 
many  are  losing  faith  in  the  churches! 
Sowing  the  seeds  of  injustice  and  then 
praying  God  to  send  ua  a  harvest  of 
righteousness;  is  not  that  a  spectacle 
to   make    angels  weep? 

Let  us,  howeveir,  once  succeed  in  bring- 
ing the  adjustments  of  society  into 
harmony  with  the  eternal  equitia. ;  let 
us  learn  how  to  recognize  everyone  bom 
into  the  world  as  the  child  of  God,  as 
a  member  of  a  brotherhood  with  cer- 
tain inalienable  rights,  by  which  he  is 
entitled  equally  with  all  others  to  the 
gifts  of  the  common  Father;  let  u» 
thus  secure  to  him  the  opportunity  to 
procure  a  livelihood  with  the  assurance 
that  what  he  sows,  that  shall  h«  also 
reap;  let  us  make  his  environment  swA 


) 


tAat  the  i^atJh  of  gooclii»>ss  will  bo  easy 
Mid  the  Burrouiiding»  tend  to  develop 
all  that  is  l)eHt  in  bini  :uid  not  the 
worst,  a8  tho  preseut  tireiinistanc^a  in 
many  >^ay!^  «lo;  let  men  he  plat'.ed  in 
*tuvh  lehitioDshipii  tJiat  each  will  try 
to  <»nfer  bin  greatest  benefit  on  all 
ihe  rest.  Then,  v\ith  t!io  opportunities 
tiiat  will  thwH  c(tme  for  the  development 
of  tlu>  higher  intellipeuee,  with  the 
removal  of  the  toniblo  pressure  orf 
temptation  that  we  now  pla-co  iu  the 
pathway  of  bontisty  and  virtiie,  with 
human  law  in  harnsony  with  the  divine 
law,  with  th«  prin<'iple3  of  righteous- 
u«»8  enthromni  in  th<'  institutions  <^t  the 
jjoople,  may  we  not  look  "ivith  confidence 
for  the  comiuor  of  that  time  by  prophets 
and  bards*  foretold,  when  the  rcigu  of 
evil  shall  forever  cease  and  man  shall 
attain  to  triumphs  of  goodness,  com- 
pared with  whi^jh,  the  attainments  of 
to-day  are  but  ay  the  glimmering  dawn 
to  the  brightness  of  the  noon-tide  glt>ry. 
Do  you  ask,  good  readier,  how  can  <biM 
Iw  adcompliahed  1  Is  not  the  lesson  most 
obvious?  Industry  turns  the  de*\irt  in- 
to a  garden  and  forthwith  we  increase 
the  t^axew  thereon.  Speculation  turns  tht 


garden  into  a  de6ert>  uud  wc  keep  tha 
taxes  low.  The  owner  of  the  favorite 
site  in  the  metropolitan  centre  toils  not 
neither  tloes  he  spin,  smd  yet  daily, 
from  the  rental  of  a  single  iwe,  he 
may  get  the  whole  yearly  crop  of  a 
farm;  on  the  side  of  the  mountain  tine 
settk-r  toils  every  day  in  the  year  and 
?trugjrleH  beneatii  a,  mortgage  held  by 
the  j*orfimie<l  seigneur.  Wh>)ro  should 
we  place  the  tax.  on  the  value  of  thepro- 
duttts  of  the  struggling  bettlcar  or  on  the 
value  created  by  the  community?  Can 
there  be  any  bu^  one  answer?  Should 
we  not  render  to  Caesar  the  tilings  that 
aie  Caesar's?  Should  w©  not  take 
community  valuer  for  community  pur- 
poses? Is  not  the  demand  of  justice 
most  obvious:  Never  tax  tho  products  of 
industry,  always  tax  the  value  r»f  the 
land,  so  as  to  remove  all  temptation 
to  use  it  for  extortion. 

For  further  infornintion  address, 
Single  Tax  Keview',  11  Frankfort  street, 
Vew  York:  R.  B.  Swinney.  1,^4  Clark 
don  strevM ,  Brooklyn,  X.  Y.,  or  Single 
Tax  Association,  7o  Yongc  sti-eet,  To- 
ronto. Can:;  do. 


